Vow of Poverty and a 'party' Cure wand

[irdeggman]

The real problem of VOP is that the player has to be gooder than good. And that is not supposedd to be an easy path.

Plus he fact that they are getting a whole lot of abilities for the VOP should mean that they are held to not only the letter but also the spirit of the vow. And in fact, the character themselves should be holding themselves to it, not trying to weasel out this and that, and argue a fine point or two. Frankly, if they do that, the gods should remove the benefits of the vow from them.

The feats, prestige classes and the mindsets present in ED is one reason I ban the book at my table. Just a poorly made and thought out book.

Actually I don't think the book itself is the problem but rather the fact that too many people look at it as a means of "powering up" and not at what it was intended to be - a role-playing guide for "mature players". BoED and BoVD should not be used without careful forethought and commitment by players and DM on how to "role-play" them.

The earlier post commenting on "why would anyone take VoP since you can get better through magic items" does a very good job of reflecting what I am basing my opinion on (and the fact that I have gamed with groups that have had VoP characters whose players did not even read the "restrictions" part).

I at one time toyed with playing a VoP kalashtar soulknife (using racial substitution levels) and had discussed it with the DM (who actually thought I could handle the "restrictions" and role-playing aspects) - but I decided against it. Not because of the problems with role-playing but because I wasn't sure the rest of the group could handle the totality of it, and I felt it was a "large" "power up" for character powers especially for classes that can readily get by without magic items (like monks, druids, and soul knives). Someday I might go that route, in the right circumstances.

 

[carborundum]

It gets better.

While the druid was scouting, the spellthief was trying to get a prisoner to talk. The guy spat on his face and got stabbed back into unconsciousness for his troubles. A potion got him back to wakefulness and he was gagged and put back with the other two prisoners before the druid came back with news of more attackers coming.

We finished up after the fight but I'm wondering if I should give the druid a spot check to notice a new scar or something.
He's really in the wrong group

 

[Rackhir]

There's a basic difference between the potion and wand. The first is an item that the other character owns, can use on their own and is single use. So pouring the potion down the other character's throat is helping them out with something they own. So no VoP violation. They never own the potion and aren't benefiting from it.

 

[Dread Polack]

Having only skimmed the VoP rules, here's my take on it:

A vow isn't simply a character choice. It's a promise made to either a god (I imagine), or some other power which will hold the character accountable. It's a binding contract, and like what was said above, you must follow the letter and spirit. That doesn't mean you can't wiggle out of it in certain circumstances. I think I might, as DM, allow a PC to use a healing wand to save a life, assuming he has no intent to keep the wand, or make a habit of ensuring there's a wand nearby at all times. After all, I'm roleplaying the god/power that's enforcing the vow, and I can always say they let it slide.

I should also point out that the VoP is probably meant for good characters, but isn't in itself a Vow of Goodness. They may, and probably do have vows or other codes of goodness, but a VoP is only a vow of poverty.

Dread Polack

 

[Slaved]

I would really prefer the vow to work differently, such as with a list of options along with how many points you have to spend and the point values of each.

Failing that, I think it could be exceptable for a character to get the class abilities of one of the incarnum classes with the drawback that the character cannot use most normal items. Keep a small list of allowables and describe a few examples of what such a character might do with their money.

There might not even need to be any special rules what-so-ever other than simply not being able to use more items than a specific low gold piece worth of non-magical general equipment. That would get around the eating issue and for-the-good-of-the-realm sacrifices or their opposite.

This would allow for most or all alignments and it has the potential to work out well.

I think that being able to have and use a maximum amount of non-magical gear of masterwork quality and below equal to your normal maximum gear value divided by your level might work out. I have not gone through all of the numbers but this would allow 1st level characters to not feel a big hit and not get a really big bonus while 20th level characters would be limited to 38,000 gold pieces which could be something like a horse, a pile of utility equipment, and some powerful, but non-magical, interesting items for emergencies.

I would probably also allow any feats gained through hit dice to be traded in for any feat with the incarnum tag plus any one other feat from the magic of incarnum book. But then I am a softie who knows that maximal use of incarnum is terribly feat intensive.

 

[TYPO5478]

Who would possibly take the Vow of Poverty?

Someone who wants to actually role-play an interesting character instead of metagaming a munchkin. Someone like me.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I should also point out that the VoP is probably meant for good characters, but isn't in itself a Vow of Goodness. They may, and probably do have vows or other codes of goodness, but a VoP is only a vow of poverty.

Dread Polack

Check what kind of feat it is, and then read the rules for that kind of feat. It is not just a feat.

 

[Belbarid]

Would either of these two actions affect his Vow?

If you have to ask...



YES!

 

[DreamChaser]

Who would possibly take the Vow of Poverty?

It doesn't do you any good. You can easily increase your AC one way or another (from magic armors, to high Dex, to a good Monk), do it really doesn't do you any good. Saving throws, and ability scores as well.

Uh...sure but no...

AC bonus, Attack bonus, DR, and true seeing, and Deflection bonus all supernatural with no way of disarming / removing short of antimagic and all stacking with a Monk's bonuses or a druid's wild shape

Endure elements, sustenance, ability score enhancement, natural armor, mind shielding, energy resistance, freedom of movement, and regeneration all as extraordinary abilities (no way of removing them and only natural armor would be lost in wild shape)

Druid, sorcerer, and monk are the three classes that I don't let take the feat. They give up nothing worth noting for the substantial power they gain.

A wizard is screwed however.

DC

 

[Maldor]

Uh...sure but no...

AC bonus, Attack bonus, DR, and true seeing, and Deflection bonus all supernatural with no way of disarming / removing short of antimagic and all stacking with a Monk's bonuses or a druid's wild shape

Endure elements, sustenance, ability score enhancement, natural armor, mind shielding, energy resistance, freedom of movement, and regeneration all as extraordinary abilities (no way of removing them and only natural armor would be lost in wild shape)

Druid, sorcerer, and monk are the three classes that I don't let take the feat. They give up nothing worth noting for the substantial power they gain.

A wizard is screwed however.

DC

wizards can't take it point it doesn't allow a spellbook